1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of a 3331m2 and its ground building in Gyeonggi-do, operates the inspection called E at the same place.

B. On December 1, 2004, the land of the Gyeonggi Gyeonggi-gun was divided into C and F land on December 1, 2004.

The divided F land was changed to G through registration conversion on December 1, 201, and was divided into G large 50 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and H land on the same day.

C. On July 17, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer from I on the instant land and its ground buildings, which are neighboring land of the said D land.

At present, the Defendant installed a pentice in part of the instant land, and the Plaintiff did not use the instant land as a passage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, Gap evidence 4-4, Eul evidence 1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 다음과 같은 이유로, 피고가 원고에게 청구취지 기재와 같이 이 사건 토지 중 별지 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉤, ㉥, ㉦, ㉧, ㉠의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (가)부분 가건물 및 같은 도면 양쪽 입구에 설치된 펜스를 각 철거하고, 별지 도면 표시 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤, ⑥, ①을 연결한 선내 (나)부분을 도로 용도로 제공할 의무가 있다는 취지로 주장한다.

1) On August 18, 1996, the plaintiff asserted the validity of the land use approval was approved by JJ, which was the owner of the land at the time of the land in this case, to use the existing farm roads as roads. The defendant who purchased the land in this case and the above ground buildings prior to the purchase of the land in this case permitted the use of the land in this case by succession to the restriction on the approval of land use. Thus, the consent of land use in this case shall affect the defendant. 2) The plaintiff's ownership in the contribution of claiming the right to passage over surrounding land is owned by the plaintiff.